I think some indigenous practices and beliefs may be useful but again not uncritically. We should dismiss them or fetishize them.

I'm opposed to a lifestyle green politics which thinks ethical consumerism is enough or changing your lifestyle is enough.

I reject Lifestylism in green politics as much as anywhere else. I am equally opposed to Green political parties. The state itself and Capitalism are opposed to green ideals.

There can never be a green society while there is capitalism.

Being in nature allows us to forget rank,wealth,prestige, desire to produce or consume.It allows us to recognise we’re part of a larger whole and the world does not revolve around us and to recognise that nature does as it does without fearing others judgement or without seeking praise.Roaming in nature as a TAZ( Temporary Autonomous Zone).

A Green society will only be possible by a revolution and a change in the total organisation of society. It can only come about in a non-state non hierarchical feminist society.Gary Snyder talks of 3 distinctions

Wilderness- places where wildness (is heavily??) present due to absence of human influence.

Wildness can occur outside of wilderness areas. Wildness is in human activity to some extent too! Nature's value.

Nature is not evil or good- those terms are projections of human values. Nature just is.
Nature is indifferent to us( in the sense that it has no personal connection to us, it has not personal interest in whether we live or die , it just is and is there.) However we should not be indifferent back to it.

Humans are neither inferior to nature(and a "virus") nor are we superior(Anthropocentrism)

We have a responsibility towards nature given how much influence over it we have.

Where do we go between treating nature as an inferior ‘other’ and treating nature as exactly like us and anthropromorphising it. I guess the answer is we should recognise nature as different from us but not separate or opposed to us. It is dialectically both like and unlike us in different ways. Maybe we cannot escape coming from a human centred viewpoint? – I tend to think we can’t. If this is correct then we must develop our ecological ethics from that point of view and we cannot have any sort of value free/neutral ecological ethics.

Is the middleground between disrespect for nature and misanthropy to be found in thinking of nature as like us but slightly different from us- of ourselves as nature conscious of itself. Self conscious of itself.

· Since we are more capable than the rest of nature of preserving nature (as much as is possible) Surely we have a moral responsibility to do so? That is not anthropocentric as such. We are part of nature but more self aware and more responsible than all the rest of nature.

· Does nature need us?? Is it selfish of us to seek to preserve nature which is only to preserve humanity? Can we seek to preserve nature without it being self servingly only to preserve the human species? What is best for nature? Will nature recover if human does end up wiping itself out??? Does nature have intrinsic value????

· CAN there be positive anthropocentric intrinsic value?

· How to have an anthropocentric view which does not make humans superior nor inferior.

Harm to nature.

I reject an absolutist position opposed to any interference with nature or any harming of animals for any reason whatsoever. We should interfere with nature as little as we can. We should only interfere with nature when it harms humanity not to do so- the same I think applies to animals.

Hunting.

Hunting for sport is morally wrong. Hunting for food when no alternative exists is acceptable and to condemn it would be racist and inhumane.

I am opposed to the absolutist position that everyone should be vegan ignoring people who cannot manage that diet for medical reasons or because of the conditions of where they live i.e. there is only meat available.

I'm critical of a non political veganism.

Technology.

I oppose Techno-utopian fetishizing of technology.

I think Trans-humanism may not be very healthy(?)

I don't agree that technology is neutral. Yet I reject the idea that technology is inherently bad.

I think it would probably be good to have a principle that technology is only useful when it furthers nature- both humanity and nonhuman nature. Probably use of something like a precautionary principle whereby the consequences of a technologies use or potential abuse would be considered and it might happen that some technology is not developed if it is thought that it could be oppressive

Maybe it would be best if cars became obsolete?

Modern agriculture has turned culture into industry. It is a frenzy, arrogant, profit seeking and about separation. It puts efficiency over community and democracy and everything else.

A green society(some speculations)

It would have to be anarchist i.e. anti-state, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy, anti-patriarchy. No borders or nations. It must be opposed to all forms of oppression. It must be a grassroots democracy, egalitarian and without private property.